ML023400430
| ML023400430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2002 |
| From: | Pulsifer R NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| To: | |
| Pulsifer R M, NRR/DLPM, 415-3016 | |
| References | |
| 2.206 | |
| Download: ML023400430 (37) | |
Text
December 05, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager, Section 2 /RA/
Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION PETITION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) FROM MR. RAYMOND SHADIS Attached is the transcript of a conference call held on Monday, November 18, 2002, regarding a Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 2.206 petition dated October 15, 2002, submitted by Mr. Raymond Shadis on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
This call was requested to discuss the Petition Review Boards recommendation to reject this petition under 10 CFR 2.206.
Docket No. 50-271
Attachment:
As stated cc w/att: See next page
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. Raymond N. McCandless U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vermont Department of Health 475 Allendale Road Division of Occupational King of Prussia, PA 19406 and Radiological Health 108 Cherry Street Mr. David R. Lewis Burlington, VT 05402 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Mr. Gautam Sen Washington, DC 20037-1128 Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC Ms. Christine S. Salembier, Commissioner P.O. Box 0500 Vermont Department of Public Service 185 Old Ferry Road 112 State Street Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Resident Inspector Mr. Michael H. Dworkin, Chairman Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Public Service Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State of Vermont P.O. Box 176 112 State Street Vernon, VT 05354 Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 Director, Massachusetts Emergency Chairman, Board of Selectmen Management Agency Town of Vernon ATTN: James Muckerheide P.O. Box 116 400 Worcester Rd.
Vernon, VT 05354-0116 Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Mr. Michael Hamer Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
Operating Experience Coordinator Main Street Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC P. O. Box 566 P.O. Box 250 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 Mr. Michael R. Kansler Sr. Vice President and Chief Operating G. Dana Bisbee, Esq. Officer Deputy Attorney General Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
33 Capitol Street Mail Stop 12A Concord, NH 03301-6937 440 Hamilton Ave.
White Plains, NY 10601 Chief, Safety Unit Office of the Attorney General Mr. John J. Kelly One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Director, Licensing Boston, MA 02108 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue Ms. Deborah B. Katz White Plains, NY 10601 Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Mr. Jay K. Thayer Site Vice President - Vermont Yankee P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Mr. Raymond Shadis P.O. Box 76 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006
ML023400430 OFFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA PDI-2/SC (A)
NAME RPulsifer LCox for MOBrien JAndersen DATE 12/4/02 12/3/02 12/4/02 Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Conference Call on the 2.206 Petition on Nuclear Plant Safety Docket Number: 50-271 Location: (Telephone Conference)
Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 Work Order No.: NRC-666 Pages 1-25 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Attachment
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 CONFERENCE CALL ON THE 2.206 PETITION ON NUCLEAR 5 PLANT SAFETY 6 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 7 DIVISION OF LICENSING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 8 (NRR/DLPM) 9 + + + + +
10 MONDAY 11 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 12 + + + + +
13 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL 14 + + + + +
15 The Conference Call on the 2.206 Petition 16 on Nuclear Plant Safety convened at 10:30 a.m., Bob 17 Pulsifer, Petition Manager, presiding.
18 PRESENT:
19 BOB PULSIFER NRC 20 RAY SHADIS NECNP 21 GARY SACHS Vermont Resident 22 DAVID LOCHBAUM UCS 23 DAVE PELTON Vermont Yankee Resident Office 24 JIM DEVINCENTIS Vermont Yankee 25 BOB WANCZYK Vermont Yankee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 PRESENT: (CONT.)
2 CLIFF ANDERSON Region I 3 FRANK ARNER Region I 4 JACK GOLDBERG OGC 5 HERB BERKOW NRR 6 JIM ANDERSEN NRR 7 STU RICHARDS NRR 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:30 a.m.
3 Operations Officer: This is the 4 Headquarters Operations Officer. Do you want us to 5 wait a little more, or do you want to do a roll call 6 right now?
7 MR. SHADIS: It depends on who youre 8 asking, I guess 9 Operations Officer: Okay. Im going to 10 do a roll call right now, and if you could just 11 listen for, and repeat, your names. And whoever 12 else comes in, you may not hear their names, okay?
13 MR. SHADIS: Okay 14 MR. PULSIFER: Anyone else on 15 MR. SHADIS: Theres a batch of us.
16 Were waiting for the roll call.
17 MR. PULSIFER: Hello, this is Bob 18 Pulsifer. Who else do we have on the line here?
19 MR. SHADIS: You have Ray Shadis; Gary 20 Sachs from Vermont; David Lochbaum; Region I; and 21 Vermont Yankee.
22 MR. PELTON: You have the Vermont Yankee 23 Residents Office, as well.
24 MR. PULSIFER: And from the licensee, 25 who do we have?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 (No response.)
2 Operations Officer: Okay. This 3 completes the roll call. If you want to start your 4 conference, go right ahead.
5 MR. DEVINCENTIS: From Vermont Yankee, 6 Jim DeVincentis and Bob Wanczyk.
7 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. Region?
8 CLIFF ANDERSEN: Region I, Cliff 9 Andersen and Frank Harnor.
10 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. Headquarters --
11 this is Bob Pulsifer, PRB. Im going to be the 12 project manager for this petition.
13 MR. GOLDBERG: Jack Goldberg 14 MR. BERKOW: Herb Berkow 15 MR. ANDERSEN: Jim Andersen and Stu 16 Richards 17 (Telephone interference.)
18 MR. PULSIFER: (in progress) -- 2.206 --
19 (Telephone interference.)
20 MR. PULSIFER: (in progress) -- this 21 year. A telephone conference was held on October 22 29th to discuss with you, Mr. Shadis, the merits of 23 your petition.
24 Last week, I informed you that the PRB 25 had recommended that your petition not be processed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 under the 2.206 process. They have said that the 2 PRB had decided that there were insufficient facts 3 to substantiate a complete review by the NRC of 4 Vermont Yankees training program for operators and 5 maintenance personnel. Also, there wasnt sufficient 6 facts for a -- in the evaluation of the FSAR.
7 I had asked whether you wanted to 8 address the PRB on this recommendation, and you said 9 yes. And this teleconference is being recorded and 10 will be transcribed.
11 Mr. Shadis, do you have any comments or 12 questions?
13 MR. SHADIS: Well, yeah. Just to start 14 off, on our last call, in my understanding it was 15 not to discuss the merits of the petition. In fact, 16 we were advised that we could not discuss the 17 content of the petition. And I dont know how one 18 can discuss the merits without discussing the 19 content.
20 MR. PULSIFER: Mr. Shadis. You seem to 21 be going in and out.
22 MR. SHADIS: Okay. Well try it just a 23 little bit louder. On our last call, my 24 understanding is that we did not discuss the merits 25 of the petition. In fact, we were advised that that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 call -- that the Board would not entertain any 2 discussion of the content of the petition. And its 3 beyond me to understand how one can discuss the 4 merits of a petition without discussing the content.
5 MR. PULSIFER: I understand, Mr. Shadis.
6 Youre right. It was for you to provide additional 7 information to help support the petition.
8 MR. SHADIS: But without discussing the 9 content?
10 MR. PULSIFER: Thats correct.
11 MR. SHADIS: Okay. I just want to get 12 it clear what -- you know, what the rules are.
13 Now, I would like to ask for some 14 clarification on your statement that there is 15 insufficient information or evidence presented in 16 the petition to support NRC action.
17 MR. PULSIFER: Under 2.206?
18 MR. SHADIS: Thats correct.
19 MR. PULSIFER: Right. 2.206, first of 20 all, asks for an enforcement action to be described.
21 In your petition, I did not see an enforcement 22 action actually prescribed. You did indicate that 23 you wanted the staff to review their program in the 24 FSAR, but there was no specific action required.
25 Also, there wasnt sufficient evidence NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 that I could see that supported a detailed review of 2 the program. Does the staff want to expound upon 3 that?
4 MR. LOCHBAUM: Ray, could I address that 5 for you?
6 MR. SHADIS: Certainly.
7 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is David Lochbaum 8 with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
9 MR. PULSIFER: Good morning.
10 MR. LOCHBAUM: I think the enforcement 11 action that was at least implicitly implied in Rays 12 petition essentially was a demand for information, 13 where you order the licensee to provide responses to 14 queries, and provide that information under oath or 15 affirmation.
16 Its not unlike -- you know, I saw the 17 letter, or I saw actually the response to the letter 18 that Vermont Yankee provided to questions from the 19 resident inspectors about the accuracy of the FSAR 20 and the information contained in the (inaudible) 21 documents relative to the RCIC system that was the 22 basis for Rays petition. So, I think that was the 23 enforcement action that was fairly clearly implied 24 in Mr. Shadis petition.
25 As far as to whether that constituted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 enough information for the NRC to -- you know, was 2 that enough of a smoking gun to require that kind of 3 response, their information and subsequent 4 retraction of a report to the NRC expended resources 5 on both the licensees part and the NRCs part.
6 Several of your goals are to maintain safety; 7 improve public confidence; reduce unnecessary 8 burden; and improve Agencys efficiency and 9 effectiveness. And if youre getting false reports 10 from the licensee, I dont know that you meet all of 11 those goals. I think perhaps many of those goals 12 are being challenged.
13 From what I saw of the plant owners 14 response to the resident inspectors questions, they 15 stated that the FSAR and the design basis documents 16 were verified to be accurate, which begs the 17 question, you know, why did the operations personnel 18 or the people making safety calls at the plant not 19 using these documents that are now verified to be 20 accurate and complete. If they had bothered to use 21 them, that initial report probably would not have 22 been made and, therefore, the NRC resources would 23 not have been cycled in responding to it.
24 But, I think thats the basis for the 25 petition request and justification for why it might NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 be needed.
2 MR. PULSIFER: I understand. The 3 licensee did say that theyve placed this into their 4 corrective action program. And we will follow up on 5 that to ensure that that particular corrective 6 action has been addressed.
7 MR. SHADIS: I can tell you that, in 8 addition, we are deeply concerned that there is no 9 evocation of the facts of the incident by NRC. The 10 licensee, in public statements and in responding to 11 the resident inspectors questions, said they took a 12 conservative action by sending out their 13 notification. From the public point of view, it can 14 hardly be considered a conservative action, if its 15 based on the assumption that they have equipment 16 that they do not have.
17 I think that one thing that would go a 18 long way to securing public confidence is if NRC can 19 either validate or repudiate that kind of assertion, 20 that this is a conservative action. Id like to 21 know, as a member of the public, how this is a 22 conservative action.
23 I think, additionally, NRC advertised 24 the 2.206 petition process -- Ive got a copy of 25 NUREG 0215, Public Involvement, and it does say that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 unsupported assertions would not be considered 2 sufficient grounds for action. But it does not 3 spell out that there is some sort of threshold for 4 information. Obviously, the information that we 5 based our request on is part of the public documents 6 and that it is substantiated information. So, some 7 NRC action, if you read NUREG 0215, it should be 8 forthcoming.
9 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. One second.
10 (Telephone interference.)
11 MR. BERKOW: This is Herb Berkow. Do 12 you have a copy of Management Directive 8.11?
13 MR. SHADIS: Well, I do, but I dont 14 understand how it applies to me.
15 MR. BERKOW: Okay, well --
16 It is an internal document, and its 17 meant to %%. But it provides the basis and the 18 guidelines upon which we make decisions, and its 19 informative. You know, its not -- obviously, it 20 doesnt give you any direction, but it does explain 21 how we do thingS. And also the fact that the -- not 22 to consider this under 2.206 doesnt mean that were 23 not going to address your concerns. It just means 24 that it will be addressed under a different 25 mechanism.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 Anything that comes in as a petition is 2 --
3 (Telephone interference.)
4 MR. BERKOW: -- or we determine that it 5 doesnt meet the criteria for review as a petition, 6 it still gets a response. It just doesnt go into 7 the 2.206 process.
8 MR. SHADIS: I think I understand what 9 youre saying. I need to reiterate -- I tried to 10 say this in our very first call -- that you and the 11 Agency has published their regulations, included 12 them in the Code of Federal Regulations. There is 13 nothing in the Code of Federal Regulations about 14 thresholds for action other than the fact that the 15 request needs to be something that NRC can do; and 16 number two, it needs to be based on real 17 information, not unsupported assertions or, as they 18 say, general opposition to nuclear power.
19 And so, if you are going to pull in 20 additional restrictions on the acceptability of 21 2.206 petitions, I believe you have the burden to 22 publish that up front, along with your invitation to 23 participate. I mean, essentially, NUREG 0215 is an 24 explanation of how the public may participate; its 25 an invitation. And it does not include any notice NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 that there are additional hurdles other than the 2 fact that this stuff -- the information needs to be 3 substantiated and that the request needs to be 4 something within the purview of the NRC. So, again, 5 I want to make that clear to you, maybe theres 6 something wrong with the process, as NRC implements 7 it, if we dont provide that notice up front.
8 The other issue, how NRC is going to 9 respond to our concerns as expressed in the 2.206, 10 Im very interested in. I would like you -- if you 11 now know how youre going to respond to each of 12 these concerns, Id like to get your take on it.
13 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Jack Goldberg.
14 Management Directive 8.11 describes the process that 15 this Agency uses to evaluate and process 2.206 16 petitions or submissions by members of the public 17 that are submitted in the context of a 2.206 18 request.
19 There is a lot of information in that 20 management directive, which is routinely provided to 21 petitioners. That brochure that you are referencing 22 cant possibly include all of the detail thats in 23 the management directive. The management directive 24 has a lot more in it than is contained in those 25 brochures, which are intended to be just very brief NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 summaries of (inaudible) that are available. So --
2 MR. SHADIS: Well, excuse me, but the 3 Code of Federal Regulations is not intended to be a 4 brief summary. And you do not have anything in --
5 MR. GOLDBERG: The Code of Federal 6 Regulations is what it is. Thats the Commissions 7 rules.
8 MR. SHADIS: Well, yeah, but thats 9 whats available to the public to engage in this 10 process.
11 MR. GOLDBERG: I didnt interrupt you 12 when you were talking.
13 MR. SHADIS: Im sorry; excuse me, I did 14 not mean to be rude. Excuse me.
15 MR. GOLDBERG: If youre going to 16 interrupt me, Im not going to say anything more and 17 youll get a letter that explains the basis for our 18 response. If you want to proceed without 19 interrupting me and give me the same courtesy that I 20 gave you when you were speaking, then I will 21 continue.
22 The regulations are what they say.
23 There are lots of (inaudible) that we have and 24 policies and procedures that we have that are not 25 and need not rise to the level of a regulation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 There are many things in Management Directive 8.11 -
2 - in fact, most of the things in there were placed 3 in there in response to concerns that have been 4 expressed by members of the public over the years to 5 provide members of the public additional 6 opportunities to interact with the staff.
7 Many things that are not provided in the 8 regulations -- public meetings, telephone conference 9 calls such as this one, opportunities to comment on 10 proposed directors decisions before they become 11 final -- none of these things are provided in the 12 regulations. None of these things does this 13 Commission have to do in accordance with our 14 regulations, but are done pursuant to the management 15 directive, which was compiled to a large extent to 16 respond to concerns that petitioners and other 17 members of the public have.
18 Mr. Lochbaum knows very well because 19 hes participated in many of the discussions that 20 have led to many of the changes that are in 21 Management Directive 8.11, and many of them are in 22 there in direct response to his concerns and his 23 request. Now, as he knows, we have not done all the 24 things that have been requested, but we have done 25 many things. But for whatever reason and with that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 historical background, the Management Directive 2 currently describes the Commission-approved process 3 for evaluating submissions submitted as 2.206 4 petitions.
5 As Herb Berkow explained, the issue that 6 you raised will be addressed in a written response, 7 even if its concluded that the submission doesnt 8 meet the criteria for treatment under 2.206. So, 9 its not a matter of whether your issue will be 10 addressed or not; its only a matter of in what 11 process will the issue be addressed.
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Pulsifer.
13 MR. PULSIFER: Yes.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Im a member of the 15 media, a daily newspaper, the Brattleboro Reformer.
16 Can I ask a question about this?
17 MR. PULSIFER: What is your name?
18 MR. WILLIAMS: Eesha Williams.
19 MR. PULSIFER: Williams, did you say?
20 MR. WILLIAMS: I cant follow a lot of 21 the jargon thats been said so far, but my question 22 is, in response to Mr. Shadis complaint that 23 Vermont Yankee said it had a piece of safety 24 equipment that it did not have, is the NRC concerned 25 about this issue, will it respond, and if so, when?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 MR. PULSIFER: I dont know for sure.
2 Im sure we will be reviewing it. As I had said, we 3 will be following up with the corrective action item 4 thats in Vermont Yankees program. How it will fit 5 into our inspection program, which report, I dont 6 know that.
7 MR. BERKOW: All of this will be 8 determined and we will document it and respond to 9 the petitioner.
10 MR. WILLIAMS: My question is when will 11 there be a response from the NRC?
12 MR. BERKOW: Well, in a reasonable 13 period of time. I guess --
14 (Telephone interference.)
15 MR. BERKOW: -- probably a matter of 16 several weeks.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Who was that speaking?
18 Is that Mr. Pulsifer?
19 MR. BERKOW: No. Mr. Berkow.
20 MR. WILLIAMS: So, you would say by the 21 end of the year, certainly there will be a response 22 to Mr. Shadis complaint.
23 MR. BERKOW: Yes. I would think so.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Ill call back then 25 and get that. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 MR. BERKOW: Certainly.
2 MR. PULSIFER: Mr. Shadis, any other 3 comments? Questions?
4 MR. SHADIS: Yeah -- well, yes. Thank 5 you. The question is what processes do you propose 6 to use to address the specific concerns laid out in 7 the 2.206?
8 MR. PULSIFER: Again, Mr. Shadis, youre 9 going in and out.
10 MR. SHADIS: Okay, let me try it again.
11 What specific processes do you propose to use to 12 address the specific concerns laid out in the 2.206?
13 MR. BERKOW: It would be treated as 14 controlled correspondence.
15 MR. SHADIS: And that means what?
16 MR. BERKOW: You would get a letter 17 responding back, as opposed to a directors decision.
18 MR. SHADIS: So, if the licensee is 19 careless in the manner in which they report, in 20 which the content of -- their notifications to the 21 NRC, the NRCs response to that is to write me a 22 letter? Is that what I understand?
23 MR. BERKOW: If the NRC finds that the 24 licensee has acted incorrectly, we have other 25 processes to take that up with the licensee. You NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 will get a response to your concerns.
2 MR. SHADIS: Well, what Im asking for, 3 based on the fact that the licensee sent you a bogus 4 notification -- by their own admission, a 5 notification that their shift supervisor did not 6 read before signing, and that is one issue -- only 7 one of about four that were raising. My question, 8 then, is how do you respond to that, other than to 9 give me information? What do you do to the 10 licensee? What is your enforcement action? Whats 11 the process?
12 (Brief pause.)
13 MR. BERKOW: Youre familiar with our 14 reactor oversight process.
15 MR. SHADIS: I certainly am.
16 MR. BERKOW: Okay. And this would be 17 fed into that process, and appropriate action would 18 be taken, if warranted. That would happen 19 regardless of whether you sent in this letter or 20 not. But you will get a response and you will be 21 advised as to what action will be taken.
22 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum 23 again. From what I gather so far, it sounds like 24 the NRC is going to be complacent with the plant 25 owner putting this matter into its corrective action NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 program, and then the NRC inspectors will evaluate 2 the corrective action program to see how the issues 3 resolved. But theres the 50.9. They did not 4 provide the NRC with complete and accurate 5 information. That cant be handled under the 6 licensees own corrective action program; thats an 7 NRC issue.
8 You know, its very clearly that they 9 challenged, if not violated, 50.9. I cant see how 10 them kicking it back into a corrective action 11 program that the owner controls is an appropriate 12 way to evaluate whether 50.9 was met or not.
13 MR. BERKOW: Well, to the extent that 14 there may be a 50.9 violation, that would be part of 15 the evaluation process that the staff goes through 16 in evaluating this incident -- and again, thats 17 independent of whether theres a letter from a 18 member of the public raising the issue. Theyre 19 normally evaluated in accordance with the reactor 20 oversight process and the Commissions enforcement 21 policy.
22 Not all violations warrant formal 23 enforcement action. There are different severity 24 levels, ranging from very minor to -- which result 25 in non-cited violations to very significant severity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 level 1 violations. So, thats all part of the 2 evaluative process that the staff would routinely 3 undertake in connection with an incident like this.
4 MR. LOCHBAUM: With respect to the 5 Vermont Yankees personnel being familiar with the 6 contents of the FSAR or the RCIC design basis 7 documents, how do you propose to determine whether 8 or not they understand whats in there?
9 (Telephone interference.)
10 MR. PULSIFER: Thats really getting 11 right back to the inspection program. Thats 12 something that well be evaluating to determine what 13 we need to look at. I know the -- does the Region 14 have any particular comment on that?
15 CLIFF ANDERSON: Yeah, this is Cliff 16 Anderson. As a part of the inspection program, we 17 have the license program, but its what weve done 18 and what we continually do. And thats the area 19 where we would look at the knowledge and adequacy of 20 the knowledge of the licensee. The corrective 21 action program -- we have a place to look at 22 licensees response to -- how they deal with the 23 issues, such as (inaudible) issues.
24 And also, we look at -- as Mr. Goldberg 25 said, we look for issues that -- such as a 50.9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 issue. We look at them with regard to what their 2 significance are [sic].
3 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum. I 4 have one process question. If, instead of 5 submitting a 2.206, Mr. Shadis were to submit an 6 allegation that personnel at Vermont Yankee didnt 7 have knowledge and awareness and so on, as he 8 mentioned earlier, would the staff be able to paper 9 away his allegation the same way youre papering 10 away his 2.206, or would that be a little bit 11 harder?
12 MR. BERKOW: That would be put into the 13 allegation process and itll be treated under that 14 process, and the alleger would get a response in the 15 same manner that the petitioner or proposed 16 petitioner would get a response to this. I dont 17 think that would make any difference, whether it was 18 submitted as an allegation or the way it was 19 submitted.
20 MR. LOCHBAUM: I dont either, and I 21 think thats sad.
22 MR. BERKOW: The staff actions will be 23 the same and the response to you will be the same.
24 MR. SHADIS: This is Ray Shadis again.
25 I just want to suggest to you that NRC is now going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 to, according to you gentlemen, undertake a review 2 of the licensees responsibility in terms of 3 providing accurate information, the licensees 4 responsibilities in terms of making certain that 5 their design basis documents reflect the real world 6 and that the employees are familiar with them. You 7 know, these are things that youre committing to 8 under the ROP. And I want to suggest to you that 9 there should be no hesitation to commit to those 10 actions as a part of the response to the 2.206 11 petition that was filed.
12 MR. BERKOW: I think what the staff is 13 committing to is to follow the ROP, whatever the ROP 14 requires, not necessary the commitments that youre 15 interpreting. The ROP is prescriptive, and it 16 defines what shall be done. And that is what were 17 committing to, to follow that process.
18 MR. SHADIS: Well, I want to tell you 19 that on the onset, the ROP is not prescriptive. The 20 ROP at the onset is discretionary in terms of the 21 inspector or NRC personnel determining whether or 22 not any issues rise to significance to be included 23 in the ROP.
24 MR. BERKOW: Thats right. There are 25 various thresholds that are defined in the process.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 MR. SHADIS: Thats right. So, at this 2 spin -- and many of those really have to do with 3 professional discretion on the part of the agency.
4 So, I am suggesting to you now, since we raised this 5 issue with you folks, that indeed your application 6 should be a response to the 2.206 as well as saying, 7 well, this is what we would ordinarily do anyway.
8 Im offering that.
9 I think -- finally, I am going to 10 suggest if you have any feedback to your executive 11 levels or to the commission level, that if your 12 internal management directive is going to be used as 13 a document to vet 2.206s coming in and there are 14 some thresholds established there for the amount of 15 information thats required, that that document 16 needs to be referenced in the regulation. The 17 regulation, as you know, is there for the public as 18 well as for the NRC. So, you know, Id like to see 19 that up front so we dont waste ink and postage.
20 MR. BERKOW: Well, we dont reference 21 management directives in the regulation. The 22 management directive is a public document that has 23 public input. And its been out there for a while.
24 I think we understand your concerns, and 25 we will, you know, respond accordingly. Do you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 anything else to add?
2 MR. SHADIS: I want to ask now, theres 3 an opportunity -- I presume this is going to come 4 out of NRR, the Directors decision?
5 MR. BERKOW: Well, the response will 6 come out of NRR.
7 MR. SHADIS: Will there be a directors 8 decision?
9 MR. BERKOW: No, no -- it will only be a 10 director decision if its accepted for review under 11 the 2.206.
12 MR. SHADIS: I see.
13 MR. PULSIFER: If not, it will come out 14 as a letter.
15 MR. SHADIS: I see.
16 MR. BERKOW: And it will be NRR.
17 MR. SHADIS: I see. Well, I dont know 18 that we can -- theres anything further that we can 19 do here, productively do. I will ask you please to 20 address the issues that Ive raised in the 2.206 21 when you write to me, point by point, and provide 22 some kind of information as to how they are going to 23 be handled.
24 MR. BERKOW: Okay. Region, any 25 comments?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 REGION REPRESENTATIVE: No. I dont 2 think we have anything to add.
3 MR. PULSIFER: Licensee.
4 LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVE: We have no 5 comments.
6 MR. PULSIFER: Resident?
7 RESIDENT INSPECTOR: We have nothing to 8 add.
9 MR. PULSIFER: Okay. Thank you very 10 much.
11 MR. SHADIS: Thank you. Good afternoon.
12 (Off the record.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433